Good evening everyone. Tonight I'd like to take a few moments and discuss the growing scandal behind the Benghazi attacks. I'd like to ask some questions, put forth some theories, and talk in circles about my own take on things. As the pile of evidence for a coverup continues to grow, and as we head towards Wednesday's hearings from the whistleblowers, let's start off with a basic question: Why would there possibly be a coverup of the events surrounding this attack? I think there are four basic reasons which would be behind this, so let's dive in!
1. Massive incompetence on the part of the State Department, Hillary Clinton, and the Obama administration. They screwed this thing up pretty nicely, perhaps greatly underestimating the threat to our embassy, and when things escalated far beyond their wildest imaginations they formed a unified front to cover their asses. This is probably the most likely explanation, but leaves one glaring question for me. If this was just some screwup, how do they explain the lack of action leading up to the attack? The months of security incidents being reported prior to 9/11. The requests for increased security denied by Secretary Clinton and the State Department. The lack of reaction during the attack which lasted hours. If massive incompetence was the reason nothing was done, and if the coverup is nothing more than everyone trying to cover their own asses, then that means this administration was absolutely asleep at the wheel to a degree which goes far beyond acceptable for a President, his administration, and the Secretary of State.
2. An intentional lack of support and response to these attacks for some unknown political cause. The Benghazi whistleblowers are expected to testify this week that they repeatedly requested additional security, requested a reaction force to support them during the attack, and that their stories are being intentionally suppressed by yet unnamed sources within this administration. One whistleblower said "You should have seen what [Clinton] tried to do to us that night". That doesn't sound like a lack of action caused by incompetence. That sounds like they put out the call for help, and that call was actively rejected. Why would such a call be rejected? We had a response team 3 hours away ready to go. Lives could have been saved, and frankly we got lucky only four Americans died that night with such a lack of action. This feels like there is something bigger going on; something in which a few American lives could be used to prove a point. This feels like lambs being led to the slaughter; Americans sacrificed for some greater plan or cause. What would this greater cause be? I have no idea, so let's move along.
3. There was something needing a coverup in Benghazi. It has been confirmed there was a CIA installation in Benghazi, and CIA operatives on the ground as a part of some operation going on there. The second part of the attack itself was on a CIA compound located near the embassy. With such a strong CIA presence there, is it very much of a stretch to assume that clandestine operations were being carried out there? Perhaps one or more of these operations got a little bit too far out on the edge of what is acceptable for an American agency operating in another country. If such an operation was going on there, then there is no doubt a coverup would be necessary to avoid an international incident with someone we want to be pals with.
4. Whoever was behind this attack is someone they don't want to be made public. This is definitely my craziest theory, but if you can put on a foil hat for a minute and join me I will explain. At this time, there seems to be no doubt that this attack was planned and executed by Islamic extremists in a coordinated attack. Why would we possibly want to cover up who was behind it? Why not bring them to justice as our President has repeatedly promised us? Consider where that rabbit hole might lead if we go all the way down. What if there was evidence that the people behind it may have been armed by our government? What if they were the very people which may have been listed in those documents at the embassy as being covertly working for the CIA in Benghazi (or at the very least cooperating with intelligence gathering operations there)? Or consider this: what if it was someone who is explicitly allied with us? With all of the Boston Marathon bombing talk, there was much speculation over the Saudi national initially detained (and since deported) possibly in connection with those attacks. There was also much speculation over the unscheduled backroom meetings between the Obama administration and top Saudi diplomats over his release and deportation. That is how business is done with Saudi Arabia. They want to handle their own scandals and avoid embarrassment, and they have the greatest bargaining chip in the world: oil. It wouldn't surprise me too much to see it come out in the end that some distant member of the Saudi royal family was behind or involved in these attacks. Please don't take this to assume Saudi Arabia was behind this; they were merely an example of how such a conspiracy might go down.
So there are my four theories. While the individual details might differ when all of the facts come out, I just don't see how it could be any other cause for a coverup of this magnitude. What does it all mean? How would these conspiracies affect the future if they played out fully? Join us this week as we dive deeper into the Benghazi scandal, the repercussions, and the outrage which we here at the Fun Percent are predicting.
No comments:
Post a Comment